Friday, January 31, 2020

I am very pleased to announce that My Stretch of Texas Ground has won big at the World Premiere Film Awards in Los Angeles. We won for:

Best Crime Drama

Best Feature Film

Best Actor (Junes Zahdi)

Best Acting duo (Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi)

Best Supporting Actor (Brian Villalobos)

Look at these beautiful laurels: 









Monday, January 27, 2020

To my surprise, Facebook did it again. They removed my post about the killing of Suleimani and the 9 Iraqis, and they banned me for 3 days. They said it was hate speech. But, what I wrote was that I denounce what these three people did. I named the three people. I won't name again because now I know better.  But, what I said was that I denounce what they did. I didn't say that I denounce them; just their action.  But, that got me sent to Facebook jail. 

So, I am going to try again to communicate my thoughts on the killing of Suleimani and 9 Iraqis. And this time, I am going to provide links to back up what I say, so that you and Facebook know that I am only reporting facts. So, here are the facts, and you can make of them what you will. 

Fact 1. Suleimani was invited to Iraq by Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Mahdi to discuss peace in the region and particularly how to defuse tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is from CNN, Facebook: 

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-soleimani-tensions-live-intl-01-05-20/h_7c821d1eb7c75ce4b103f0e8020a35e1


Fact 2. Suleimani went to Russia, when he was invited there by Putin, to discuss how to defeat Islamic State in Syria. This is from Reuters, Facebook:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-iran-russia/iranian-commander-soleimani-meets-putin-in-moscow-idUKKBN0TZ1NY20151216


Fact 3. Prime Minister Mahdi called the killing of Suleimani a political assassination, and  U.S. Presidential candidates Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg also called it an assassination. Here, National security attorney Karen Greenberg explains why the attack on Suleimani was illegal. It's from the New York Times, Facebook:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/qassim-suleimani.html 

Fact 4: Many terrorist acts have been attributed to Suleimani, but, there is no evidence that he did any. There are accusations galore that he did it all over the world- from Argentina to Africa to India. But, there is no evidence that he did; only accusations. And if anyone has proof that he committed terrorism, the targeting of innocents, I wish they would point me to it. But here is former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman who writes in his condemnation of the killing of Suleimani of the "witless hubris and violence of US foreign policy" and he attributes no terrorist acts by Suleimani. 

https://transnational.live/2020/01/04/the-suleimani-assassination-not-a-retaliation-but-an-act-of-war/

Fact 5: Terrorism is defined as the targeting and killing of civilians. Since it is the U.S. that says Suleimani was a terrorist, let's look at times in which the U.S.targeted and killed civilians. The first concerns the targeting of Saddam Hussein and his sons at a restaurant in Baghdad.  I don't say the U.S. desired to kill civilians, but the U.S. was willing to kill civilians in order to get Saddam and his sons, although they didn't get them. When you bomb a restaurant knowing that you are going to kill civilians, you are TARGETING those civilians as much as your specific targets. I believe that WHEN YOU WILLFULLY KILL CIVILIANS IN A MILITARY OPERATION it is terrorism. This article in The Telegraph is entitled, Smart Bombs aimed at Saddam killed families.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1428061/Smart-bombs-aimed-at-Saddam-killed-families.html

Fact 6: The U.S. has bombed many wedding parties in Afghanistan. Everyone knows that women and children attend weddings, right? This article by Tom Engelhardt refers to 8 weddings parties that were bombed in Afghanistan. But, the article 2013, the number is higher now. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-has-bombed-least-eight-wedding-parties-2001/

Here is another wedding party attack that occurred in 2019, killing 40 civilians, just days after a U.S. drone strike killed 32 pine nut harvesters in Afghanistan. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKBN1W80MI

Fact 7: I made a movie, My Stretch of Texas Ground, which says that there is little difference between war and terrorism, morally speaking. The big difference lies in the Mathematics because war kills a lot of more people than terrorism. This is a very stark but comprehensive analysis by James A. Lucas of Countercurrents.org about the death toll from U.S. wars since the end of World War II. It is staggering, and it would be staggering even if it were just 10 percent of what he claims. 

https://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

Fact 8: This is from the Watson School of International Relations at Brown University in Rhode Island, reporting that the United States has killed 801,000 people directly in war violence since 9/11, and several times that many more indirectly.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/  

I view the killing of Sulemani and Muhandis, the latter being the leader of the Popular Mobilization Front in Iraq, which is an Iraqi military unit, and the 8 other unnamed Iraqis who were in this welcome party who were taking Suleimani to Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi as savage, criminal, and illegal, but also as the complete obliteration of civilization. What I mean is that if nations everywhere are going to kill in this fashion, if killings such as these are going to be justified the way these were justified, then we might as well be living in the Stone Age or the jungle. 

Suleimani was in the hands of Iraqi government officials and being taken to the Prime Minister. Iraq, being a sovereign nation, Trump could have implored Prime Minister Mahdi to arrest Sulemani. He could have informed him of the imminent attacks Sulemani was planning and shown him the intelligence for it. Then, presumably, Sulemani could have been been turned over to The Hague or other international court for trial. That would have been the civilized, law-abiding way to do it. 

I will leave you with this piece by Medea Benjamin and Nicholas Davies of Common Dreams about 10 unintended consequences of these latest U.S. drone killings. 

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/10/10-ways-trumps-actions-against-iran-hurt-us-region-and-world

To Facebook: I am appalled by the U.S. killing of Suleimani and 9 Iraqis, and I am saying so without expressing hate, and you have no basis to accuse me of engaging in hate speech just because I denounce the killing of 10 people, 8 of whom were not named or accused of any crimes.  

   




Sunday, January 26, 2020

Let's look at Jackie's actions. She was looking left, and then she began rotating her head to the right. 

Below, she has started her rotation. He still looks OK. 

Below, she is almost there, and he still looks OK.

Below, she has arrived.
According to this, he has gone from waving to covering his face with his hand in 15 frames, which is 5 /6 second. She has done a complete 180 and is now looking at him squarely. In her testimony, she said he look "quizzical." Obviously, if his hand was over his face, he wouldn't look anything but covered. Her eyes remain on him, and when he goes into his spasms, she tries with two hands to get him to put down his arm. I wonder how hard she was pressing. Notice that Connally seems to be worse off than Kennedy. Notice that JFK's left fingers are flexed sharply at the metacarpal joints, all except his index finger, if that's real.  Jackie is looking at Connally, probably because he was agonizing and vocalizing more. JFK wasn't vocalizing at all. 

She continues looking at Connally as she leans in closer to JFK, who seems totally zombified, like he is mentally extracted. He is all clinched up; cognitively non-responsive. He seems frozen. 

The heroic Nellie, who apparently was the most cognizant, starts pulling her husband down on top of herself to lower him, while Jackie's eyes go back to JFK, who remains frozen. 

She huddled in very close to him at that point, but then when he was hit and went back and to the left, she ducked out of the way momentarily. 
Then, she went back. 
And then she climbed out the back, but later, she said she had no memory of doing it. 

Let's describe JFK's aberrant behavior after being shot. I have the very excellent Image of An Assassination, A New Look at the Zapruder film. I watched it again, several times, at regular speed and slow motion.

So, JFK is smiling and waving. All's well. Then suddenly, around frame 198, he puts his hand over his face. 




Now, I don't believe he really did that.Why would he? It's not even a reasonable response to being shot, and according to them, he hasn't been shot yet.  It has to be paint  They were covering up the expression on his face from being shot because he was already shot in the back at that point. Remember the "quizzical" look Jackie spoke of? That's what I'm talking about. 

So, the hand over his face continued until he disappeared behind the sign.  When he emerges, he goes through raising his hands to his throat. His right hand he places over his mouth and coughs, but apparently just once, which means that he cleared whatever it was that was blocking his breathing. To do it in one cough tells me it wasn't much. 

But then, even though he was finished, he continued holding his arms up and his elbows out. It isn't normal to raise your elbows. You can bring your hand to your mouth and leave your elbow down. But look at frame 239 where he lifted his elbow higher than his hand. 


His mission was accomplished at that point. He had no reason to continue holding up his arms at all, but he couldn't let them go. To me, it looks like he is trying to make an elbow strike to a taller man. Indeed, he looks like a martial artist. 

Then, Jackie tries first with one hand, and then with two hands, to get him to lower his arm, as per frame 255..  She has little success. 



His muscle spasming increases, with his posterior cervical and spinal muscles all contracted, as well as his trapezius, as per frame 278.


And mentally, he seems incapacitated, where he is not responding to the emergency and shows no awareness of it. He seems completely internalized. He seems cognitively detached and dysfunctional. He seems frozen. And that continues until 313 when the shot to his head kills him except for lingering and winding down vital signs that are no more significant than a chicken running around with its head cut off. 

I am very interested in understanding the cause of all that aberrant behavior, and I hope I am not the only one. 

Friday, January 24, 2020

This link provides a very good summary of what we know about the CIA poison dart gun:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/08/cias-undetectable-poison-dart-gun/

So, the gun was practically silent, and the impact was practically undetectable to the victim. And that makes sense in this case because JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and if he had reacted to being shot in the back with a bullet, as anyone would, all would have seen it.  But, the only thing that Jackie noticed was he started to look "quizzical" and that was from whatever twitch he felt and the rapidly occurring effects of the drug or drugs that were delivered.

Some have tried to say that the purpose of the back shot was to implant a Carcano bullet in his back- as evidence. But, that is ridiculous because there was no bullet. There was no bullet in his back or anywhere else. Some have tried to say it was dug out of his back at the "pre-autopsy" but if the whole purpose was to put it there, then why take it out? But, we don't have to consider that because nobody took any bullet out of his back, and it certainly didn't fall out. The whole story gets more and more ridiculous the more you look at it because the bullet had to have enough speed to get to him, which means that it would have traveled much farther inside of him. And if you look at the wound, you can see that nobody messed with it. It looks clean. If there was a bullet in him, it would have been necessary to dilate the opening, then get surgical pliers in there to firmly grasp the bullet, and then pull it out, with the arms of the pliers and the bullet coming out at once, which is a wider diameter than the bullet alone. You couldn't take it out as cleanly as it went in.  


The only thing that makes sense is that he was hit with that CIA frozen dart gun which delivered a drug or drugs which caused the two abnormalities we see in him post-shot: dyskinesia and disorientation. JFK is out of it mentally in the Zapruder film. He's like a zombie or a drunk, and that cannot be attributed to the physical damage from the back shot or the throat shot. 

The back shot definitely came first. It came before Jackie noticed him looking quizzical. It occurred slightly before the Croft photo. The throat shot occurred when he was behind the sign in relation to Zapruder. But, the sign did not block Zapruder's camera as much as it does in the Zapruder film. They definitely beefed up the sign. 

For the back shot, they were NOT trying to implant a bullet in his back for show. They had no need to do that. They had no means to do that. And they obviously didn't do it since there was no bullet there. 

The purpose of the back shot was to create the effect in Kennedy that we see in Zapruder 225 to 313, which he is unable to control his hyper-spasmodic muscles and he is mentally torpid. Those were aberrant behaviors that had to be caused by something, and what caused them was the back shot, not the physical trauma from it, but rather, the drugs that were contained in it. 

I just read today that the FDA is now saying that sun block compounds that you apply to your skin as sun screen are absorbed into your blood. So, if a chemical can go from the surface of your skin into your blood, just from rubbing it on and not traumatizing the skin at all, then bursting a frozen projectile into the back under the skin can surely get compounds into the blood. 

The throat shot surely was not taken from the Triple Underpass. That shot went EXACTLY where they wanted it to go: into his throat, his voice box, incapacitating his ability to speak. It was not meant to go through his neck. It was not a kill shot. There was nothing accidental or arbitrary about any aspect of that shot. If it was taken from the Triple Underpass, think about the momentum that the bullet would have needed just to reach him. How could they possibly get it to stop in a fraction of an inch? How would they know that it would? When you think about how superficial it was, there is no way that it was shot from that far away. 

I think it's likely that they were planning to use the Single Bullet Theory all along. They wanted to get that dart in his back to deliver the drug or drugs, but how were they going to explain it? How were they going to claim that Oswald's rifle did that? 

And think about this: they only wanted to kill Kennedy. So, why would they take the chance of shooting him in the back with a high-powered rifle with a full metal jacket bullet that could easily traverse him? Connally was LBJ's protege'. They certainly didn't want to shoot him. So, that back shot was definitely just the dart that was sure to go nowhere; to just lodge in him and start dispersing the chemicals. But still, it was going to leave a hole in his back which had to be explained and related to Oswald's gun and ammunition. So, they asked themselves, what would Oswald's gun and ammunition do? The answer: probably go through him. So, by making that hole in his throat, they not only silenced him; they created an exit wound for the shot to his back. They knew they were going to be in control of the autopsy. 

So, when Arlen Specter came up with his single bullet theory, you've got to think of him as just the spokesperson, the pitch man for it. He got the idea from the FBI. 

And think about this: They probably had the expectation that JFK would be dead on arrival at the hospital. And why not? They were going to shoot him in the head, and most people die instantly or  within seconds when they're shot in the head.  I don't think they expected him to arrive at the hospital alive. They expected him to be resoundingly dead by the time he got there and declared so immediately. And as soon as he was declared dead by Dallas doctors, they would have said, "Thanks; now you're done." They wouldn't have let them do any poking around. 

So, I think they set up that shallow shot to the back and the shallow shot to the throat in order to create the option of claiming that the Carcano bullet from the high-powered rifle traversed him. 

And think about what the FBI first said about the shots, that there were 3, that one struck Kennedy in the back; one struck Connally in the torso; and then there was the fatal head shot to Kennedy. After the injury to Tague was reported, there had to be a bullet for him, so they combined the shot to Kennedy's back with the shooting of Connally. But, what would they have done if Tague hadn't been scratched? They still had two wounds on JFK's body (back and neck) which had to be explained by one bullet. My point is that: even without the Single Bullet Theory as we know it, they would still have had to argue for a single bullet causing two wounds on Kennedy. There was still going to be a Single Bullet Theory for the back and neck wounds on Kennnedy. 

So, that settles it: the Single Bullet traversing Kennedy was baked into the cake from the beginning. They could never explain an FMJ that only went into him an inch and then disappeared. So, they knew ahead of time that they had to say that it went through him. So, they had to shoot him in the neck to create the exit wound for it.  Obviously, the location of the wounds was very important, as was the depth of each. And since traversing him was the story they were going to go with, it meant that there couldn't be a bullet left in him. 

So, that means that the neck shot, like the back shot, had to be  bulletless, using just the frozen dart that dissolved and vanished. I don't know if the neck shot also contained a toxin, but it might have. 



  



  
This is a revision of a previous post of mine about the killing of Sulemani and 9 others in Iraq by the U.S. Military. Facebook did not like it, and they took it down and banned me for 24 hours. I'm rather surprised because all I did was denounce the savage killing of 10 people. I didn't threaten anyone with harm; I denounced murdering people. But, I suspect someone reported it to Facebook, and they reviewed it and banned it and me. So, I will try it again, and I dare whoever reported it to report it again because I am not advocating harm or violence to anyone. I am denouncing harm and violence by anyone. 

I am returning now to the killing of Suleimani. I have found out that he did fly to Baghdad alone. Completely alone. Doesn't it seem like a guy who was about to launch attacks on several U.S. installations would probably have someone with him, if only for protection? 

He was met at the airport by 9 Iraqis, all of whom were connected to the Iraqi government. Suleimani was invited there by the Iraqi government, by Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi, to discuss peace in the region and the prospect for improved relations with Saudi Arabia. That's according to Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi. 

It has now been over 3 weeks since Suleimani was killed, and no evidence has been provided that he was planning any violent acts against the United States. He's been accused of everything, including all the unrest in Iraq against the U.S. of late, but no evidence has been provided that he organized it.  

What would that evidence consist of? Perhaps, something in writing; a document; an intercepted phone call; a photo of him at the scene of a crime. Perhaps bringing forward credible witnesses with detailed accounts of his criminal actions. But, there hasn't been anything. Trump, Pompeo, and Esper have simply said that Suleimani was planning attacks and that they were imminent, including one against the U.S. Embassy. That's it. 

To my friends in the JFK truth movement, I'll point out that you don't accept what the government says about the death of JFK, so why should you accept what the government says about the life of Suleimani? It's the same government. 

Did Suleimani kill Americans, and was he a terrorist? We know he fought ISIS. We know that the Russians respected him for it and considered him a partner. So, are the Russians terrorists too?  

I haven't seen any evidence that Suleimani killed Americans. We know that over 5000 Americans have been killed in Iraq, and we know that the the U.S. is willing to blame some and perhaps many of those deaths on him. But, let's be realistic: the U.S. crossed the ocean to attack Iraq, and according to highly respected U.S. researchers, the U.S. has killed many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. With or without Suleimani, there was bound to be some raging. If Suleimani were never born, do you think there would have been no Americans killed in Iraq?  

I know it's hard to look at things from another's perspective, but is it that hard to grasp that to some Iraqis, the U.S. is the terrorist in this situation? 

But regardless, if Sulemani planned and executed attacks on Americans, evidence for it has not been provided to us. We've simply been told that he did. It's not that the evidence has been scanty; it's that there's been none. And even after complaints about the lack of evidence surfaced, they continued to just say that he was planning imminent attacks. 

But, what about the collateral murders that were involved in this- the other 9 people we killed? Only one has been named, Abu Mahdi Muhandis, the leader of the Populist Militia in Iraq, which is a unit within the Iraqi Military, but one that we don't like. Muhandis had also served in the Iraqi Parliament to which he was democratically elected by Iraqis. The other 8, we don't know or care who they were. Their lives were so unimportant, they didn't even deserve to be named.  

But, it was a diplomatic mission. Suleimani was there by invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister. And the other 8 were just there by circumstance: probably, a driver, a secretary, an assistant, etc. Think about it: they named Muhandis because they had a basis to label him as being bad. It's not as though they don't know who the other 8 are. They are not naming them because they don't have a basis to justify killing them. If there were a basis, they would name them.
"We also took out So-and-So who committed such-and-such." There was nothing like that because they didn't have it on the other 8.  

Think about the whole mindset of targeting enemies and being willing to kill others in order to get those enemies. It's the very definition of "collateral damage." It happens a lot in war. During the Iraq War, which we started, we were willing to bomb and craterize a whole city block in Baghdad in order to kill Saddam Hussein at a restaurant. Except: he wasn't at the restaurant; our intelligence was faulty, but the men, women, and children we killed are still dead.

Would you please try to understand that some people view THAT as terrorism?      

But, in that case, we were at war with Iraq. We crossed the ocean to attack that country. We never officially declared war, but the U.S. hasn't officially declared war since World War II. The U.S. Constitution was bypassed in 1950 when Truman took us to war in Korea without a Congressional declaration of war.  Unofficially, the Constitution got amended from that point on, and it's been that way ever since. But, in the context of the new way that America goes to war, which is by Presidential decree, we were certainly at war with Iraq.  President George W. Bush announced the start of military operations against the Iraqi regime.  But, in this case, we weren't at war with Iran. Even by the modern standard of how we declare war, we were not at war with Iran. And neither were we at war with Iraq, and yet, we killed 9 Iraqis, all of whom were associated with the Iraqi government.  

If you are going to sanction the killing of Suleimani and the 9 Iraqis, what you're saying is that the U.S. government can kill anyone it wants, any time it wants, anywhere it wants, for any reason it wants, and with whatever amount of collateral deaths are necessary to get the job done. And you're saying that the U.S. government can do it both in times of war and peace, and that the U.S. government has complete, unbridled, unrestrained discretion to do it and has to answer to no one. 

I denounce what Trump, Pompeo, and Esper did as an act of unspeakable, savage murder and terrorism. And I denounce what the U.S. Congress is doing in letting them get away with it. And I denounce what the U.S. Media is doing in supporting it. 

I'll close by pointing out that surely you realize that the savagery practiced by Americans against each other has never been greater, that the frequency of mass killings, hate killings, school killings, church killings, etc. has never been greater. Never has it been more dangerous just to go shopping somewhere or attend a concert or go to church than it is today. BUT, IF SAVAGERY IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED AND TOLERATED AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN AT THE STREET LEVEL? Don't you see that the two go together, hand in hand? 

And imagine if every nation did it: went out killed the leader of some other nation by calling him and them terrorists. Iran has declared the U.S. government and its Military to be terrorists, and I agree with them because of the findings of the American Brown University in the American state of Rhode Island who have said that since 9/11, the U.S. government and its Military have directly killed 801,000 people, and have indirectly killed millions more. Read it yourself:   

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/

Now, I consider that terrorism. Savage, unspeakable, nightmarish terrorism. I really do. 





















Thursday, January 23, 2020

Ron! You said it! Listen to Ronnie!
  • Super Member
  • Ron Ecker
All that meticulous planning would have gone for naught if JFK had ducked down to the floorboard after the first shot and survived. But instead he sat there as if paralyzed till they blew his brains out. And that was the purpose of the dart(s), to make sure he sat there till dead.

What was the CIA's MKNAOMI?

The following is reproduced from the August 1977 MKULTRA hearings (Appendix A) in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United States Senate. While it is not the last word by any means on this subject, information on the MKNAOMI program is scarce, and this is one of the primary source materials we have.
MKNAOMI was another major CIA program in this area. In 1967, the CIA summarized the purposes of MKNAOMI:

(a) To provide for a covert support base to meet clandestine operational requirements.

(b) To stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials for the specific use of TSD [Technical Services Division].

(c) To maintain in operational readiness special and unique items for the dissemination of biological and chemical materials.

(d) To provide for the required surveillance, testing, upgrading, and evaluation of materials and items in order to assure absence of defects and complete predictability of results to be expected under operational conditions. [9]

Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA use.

SOD developed darts coated with biological agents and pills containing several different biological agents which could remain potent for weeks or months. SOD developed a special gun for firing darts coated with a chemical which could allow CIA agents to incapacitate a guard dog, enter an installation secretly, and return the dog to consciousness when leaving. SOD scientists were unable to develop a similar incapacitant for humans.

SOD also physically transferred to CIA personnel biological agents in "bulk" form, and delivery devices, including some containing biological agents.

In addition to the CIA's interest in biological weapons for use against humans, it also asked SOD to study use of biological agents against crops and animals. In its 1967 memorandum, the CIA stated:

Three methods and systems for carrying out a covert attack against crop and causing severe crop loss have been developed and evaluated under field conditions. This was accomplished in anticipation of a requirement which was later developed but was subsequently scrubbed just prior to putting into action. [9a]

MKNAOMI was terminated in 1970. On November 25,1969, President Nixon renounced the use of any form of biological weapons that kill or incapacitate and ordered the disposal of existing stocks of bacteriological weapons. On February 14, 1970, the President clarified the extent of his earlier order and indicated that toxins -- chemicals that are not living organisms but are produced by living organisms -- were considered biological weapons subject to his previous directive and were to be destroyed. Although instructed to relinquish control of material held for the CIA by SOD, a CIA scientist acquired approximately 11 grams of shellfish toxin from SOD personnel at Fort Detrick which were stored in a little-used CIA laboratory where it went undetected for five years. [10]
MKNAOMI was the code name for a joint Department of Defense/CIA research program lasting from the 1950s through the 1970s. Unclassified information about the MKNAOMI program and the related Special Operations Division is scarce. It is generally reported to be a successor to the MKULTRA project and to have focused on biological projects including biological warfare agents—specifically, to store materials that could either incapacitate or kill a test subject and to develop devices for the diffusion of such materials.[1][2][3][4][5]
During the first twenty years of its establishment, the CIA engaged in various projects designed to increase U.S. biological and chemical warfare capabilities. Project MKNAOMI was initiated to provide the CIA with a covert support base to meet its top-secret operational requirements. The purpose was to establish a robust arsenal within the CIA's Technical Services Division (TSD) of various lethal and incapacitating materials. This would enable the TSD to serve as a highly maintained center for the circulation of biological and chemical materials.[citation needed]
Surveillance, testing, upgrading, and the evaluation of special materials and items were also provided by MKNAOMI so as to ensure that no defects and unwanted contingencies emerged during operational conditions. For these purposes the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command (SOC) was assigned to assist the CIA in the development, testing, and maintenance procedures for the biological agents and delivery systems (1952). Both the CIA and SOC also modified guns that fired special darts coated with biological agents and various poisonous pills. The darts would incapacitate guard dogs, allow agents to infiltrate the area that the dogs were guarding, and then would be used to awaken the dogs upon exiting the facility. In addition, the SOC was designated to research the potentials for using biological agents against other animals and crops.[citation needed]
A 1967 CIA memo which was uncovered by the Church Committee was evidence of at least three covert techniques for attacking and poisoning crops that had been examined under field conditions. On November 25, 1969, President Richard Nixon abolished any military practice involving biological weapons and Project MKNAOMI was dissolved. On February 14, 1970, a presidential order was given to outlaw all stockpiles of bacteriological weapons and nonliving toxins. However, despite this presidential order, a CIA scientist was able to acquire an estimated 11 grams of deadly shellfish toxin from SOC personnel at Fort Detrick. The toxin was then stored in a CIA laboratory where it remained undetected for over five years.[6]
Right on, Cliff.
Cliff Varnell
  • Super Member
It was most likely a MKNAOMI dart. 
Right on, Ron.






I would like to propose that the shallow back wound was caused by a small 
dart that would paralyze JFK and then dissolve.
It has been suggested that the throat wound with no exit was caused by such
a dart, fired by the Umbrella Man. We know that the CIA had other launching
devices in addition to the umbrella to fire such paralyzing and dissolving darts.
Firing darts at JFK from two directions would make sense in case one missed.
    I am eagerly awaiting Dr. David Mantik's assessment of JFK's medical condition as we observe him in the Zapruder film and the effects that the shots had on him, medically speaking. But, until then, here is how it stands for me.

    I start by recognizing that JFK was functioning normally before he was shot, but then he was in a state of dyskinesia. 

    Dyskinesia is defined as abnormal, uncontrollable, involuntary movements. There are many different types of dyskinesia with symptoms that range from minor tics to full-body movements.


    The only one who has tried to explain this that I know of is Dr. John Lattimer, but his explanation, that it is a Thorburn reaction is ridiculous. Dr. Thorburn's patient suffered crushing trauma to his spinal cord at the level of C5 rendering him quadriplegic. He was paralyzed in all his somatic muscles except for four, and what happened to him is that because those muscles which still worked were unopposed, they underwent "muscle creep." There is always some tone in your muscles, where they tend to shorten a little, but the reason they don't do it is because opposing muscles are stretching them at the same time. But, when you remove the opposition, the muscle will eventually creep to its shortest length. That's what we are looking at below on the left. 


    But, Kennedy wasn't paralyzed in any of his muscles, and his spinal cord wasn't damaged at all. He was trying to cough something up but his muscular usage was excessive; he went into a spasmodic state, and then he couldn't release it. Jackie tried to help him release it. She tried to coax him to put his arm down, but he couldn't. 
    Her one hand didn't work, so she tried two.

    But, that didn't work either. He wouldn't let go. This is functional pathology; an aberrant and excessive muscular response. But why? Something must have affected him between a and b. 

    Dr. Mantik says that the impact of the shallow back shot was "trivial" and I agree. And there is no reason to think that the throat shot caused this. I think it was due to a toxin. I think that the shot to his back, which was not a regular bullet, must have contained a very fast-acting nerve agent.  The very fact that it only penetrated an inch through soft tissue tells you that it was not a regular bullet. Some have tried to say it was a regular bullet but with deficient gun powder, hence a "short charge" and so it lacked the momentum to penetrate. But, if that were true, it would have lacked the momentum to reach him at all. For a bullet to travel stabily in a straight line requires that it be fully charged. Robert Prudhomme estimates that for the bullet to have only enough momentum to travel an inch through soft tissue would mean it could have a velocity of no more than 400 feet per second, which is 20% of the normal speed of 2000 feet per second. And, I have seen it reported as 2200 feet per second. Prudhome goes on to say that the bullet certainly would not have reached him accurately at that slow speed, and it probably wouldn't have reached him at all. It would have run out of gas. It would have hit the  ground. You know, gravity?

    So, the whole "short charge" claim is ridiculous, but, there's more. There were a lot of eyes on Kennedy. His wife's eyes were on him, and she was sitting right next to him. If he was hit in the back with a bullet, a real bullet, imagine how startling it would have been. Imagine how he would have reacted. He probably would have been vocal. 

    Look, if I stood behind you with an ice pic in my hand, and the ice pic had a collar on it such that it could only penetrate one inch, and then I plunge it into your back. How are you going to react? You're going to jump, aren't you? You're probably going to scream, aren't you? But, nobody reported anything like that for Kennedy. And his wife said that the first thing she noticed, telling her that something was wrong, was that he he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Read her testimony. So, how could a guy get shot in the back with a regular bullet and wind up with just a quizzical look on his face? It doesn't follow. 

    But, if you go back to the Church Committee, you find out that the CIA "heart attack gun" was designed to deliver an impact that felt no more significant than a mosquito bite. That's a quote. And it accounts for why Kennedy didn't jump. And what was he "quizzical" about? He was quizzical knowing that something had happened to him, but he didn't know exactly what. 

    I don't know what the projectile was, but I presume it was something frozen. And remember what happens to ice cubes sometimes: THEY EXPLODE WHEN YOU TRY TO PRY THEM OUT OF THE SHELL. It's from minerals in the water.

    I really think that Kennedy was hit with such a projectile. It explains why nothing was found. There was no bullet inside him. There was no bullet trapped within his clothes. And whatever chemical agent or agents were in the projectile must have caused his aberrant kinetic behavior and mental impairment, where, in the Zapruder film, he seems to be inebriated. 
    This statement by former police officer Napoleon Daniels to Mark Lane is incredible. You can hear it at 1:10:23 in this video.

    https://archive.org/details/RushToJudgment_608

    You'll hear him say that he was driving to the assassination site just to see it when he saw Officer Roy Vaughn, whom he knew, guarding the Main Street ramp. So, he actually stopped and parked and went to talk to him, just out of curiosity. Then Vaughn told him what he was doing and why. But he stuck around after that for 20 minutes. Then, without naming Ruby, he referred to Ruby showing up. He said Ruby wore a blue suit. Ruby did not wear a blue suit. He wore a brown suit. And it says so on his property invoice, which I am attaching. It says: "brn. suit".
    Then, Mark Lane asked him about Ruby's hair, and Daniels said that Ruby had brownish hair and was bald on top. But, Ruby was wearing a fedora hat, and there is no reason to think he took it off. Then, Daniels said that Ruby had his right hand in his right coat pocket and something was bulging, which he presumed was a gun. But, his hand alone would have caused the pocket to bulge. The Colt Detective Special was extremely small, and if his hand was over it in the pocket, there wouldn't be much of anything to see. And why would Ruby do that? He testified that he didn't go there to shoot Oswald and didn't even expect to see Oswald. And even if you don't believe that, this was several minutes before Oswald was shot, so why bother clutching the gun so early when Oswald wasn't in sight? Then, Daniels said that it looked like Vaughn saw Ruby and let him pass. And he said that it had nothing to do with Rio Pierce coming out and being distracted by that, that Vaughn was just standing there guarding the ramp and let Ruby enter. This is incredible because It is so blatantly and demonstrably false..
    That video of Officer Roy Vaughn denying that he let Ruby pass or that Ruby got passed him on his watch has been taken down from Youtube, and I don't know why. Was it because it was so darn convincing? 

    Roy Vaughn was not in on it. He did not let Ruby pass. And he was not a bumbling idiot incapable of guarding an 8 foot wide ramp. Vaughn was innocent, and he was set up. He wasn't put there until after Ruby was already in custody up on the 5th floor. Ruby arrived there early, much earlier than claimed. 

    "During his testimony before the commission, Vaughn never wavered from his belief that Ruby did not pass him on that ramp and that the nightclub owner must have gained access to the area from some other entrance. The results of two polygraph examinations supported Vaughn. However, the eyewitness testimony of former policeman N.J. Daniels, who saw a man resembling Ruby walk down the ramp three to four minutes before the murder of Oswald, painted a different and more damaging portrait."
    "The commission did not pursue the matter, preferring to believe that Ruby did in fact get by Vaughn unnoticed but that Vaughn was not at fault, negligent, or responsible in any way for the death of Oswald. But Vaughn received rougher treatment in Executive Action, a 1973 movie posing the theory that Kennedy’s murderers were hired and trained (and eventually disposed of) by a cabal of oil men with the nodding approval of the CIA and the FBI. In the film, the actor playing Vaughn deliberately turns his head as the Ruby character walks past him and down the ramp. Vaughn filed suit against the film’s production company and others involved with the film, including fellow Midlothianite Penn Jones, then-editor of the Midlothian Mirror. The suit was settled out of court."




    Wednesday, January 22, 2020

    That Rick Bucciarelli not only claims that the pipe smoker in the Homicide Bureau is Bookhout, he also thinks this other figure from the Midnight Press Conference is Bookhout. 

    So, I am going to address it. 

    Keep in mind that Bookhout, in his Warren Commission testimony, under oath, denied attending the Midnight Press Conference. He did not say, "I did not attend the Midnight Press Conference" but he said that he didn't see Oswald from the time of the lineup on Friday afternoon to seeing him in the Homicide Bureau on Saturday morning. And that is tantamount to saying that he didn't attend the MPP.  

    Mr. STERN - When the lineup was concluded, what happened next, as far as you were concerned?
    Mr. BOOKHOUT - I returned to the homicide and robbery bureau.
    Mr. STERN - Was Oswald brought back there, or taken elsewhere?
    Mr. BOOKHOUT - I don't recall specifically whether he was brought back to the homicide and robbery bureau, or placed in jail, but I do know that I didn't interview him any more that day.
    Mr. STERN - Did you have any further contact with him that day? Friday?
    Mr. BOOKHOUT - No.
    Mr. STERN - When did you next see Oswald?
    Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, it would be on the morning of November 23, 1963, in the homicide and robbery bureau.


    So, that would rule him out, but we'll look at it anyway.


    The first thing we have to ask is if those two are even the same man, and they're not. Can you see that the man on the left has a gaunt face whereas the man on the right has a round face? Can you see that the man on the left has a weird, very short peninsular tuft of hair in front that looks like it was smeared on with a Sharpie, whereas the man on the right has a normal looking hairline and a much fuller hairline without nearly as much recession? Do they look like the same glasses to you? They don't to me.  And look at that guy at large, and when I say large, I mean large. 



    Why is he so tall. He can't be standing on anything. There is no reason to think that he alone had something to stand on.  And even if he did, people can't stand on objects without having to struggle to balance. It's not like standing on solid ground. And how could he big so big? Look at his breadth. I have an arrow pointing to his shoulder, and it's out way too far. He couldn't have been that wide. I'll redo it more realistically. Unless the guy was some freak linebacker, this is about as wide as his shoulders could be. 



    Now look at them in succession. 











    Can't you see that it's too wide? Don't you know that the JFK Assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of photography? 

    Let's look for that guy in other shots of the MPP.




    OK, let's try this a different way. I'll circle the guy who was the secretary/gofer for the police chief. I forget his name, but for about 6 months, Joseph Backes and others alleged that he was Bookhout. Now remember that Bookhout that denied going to the Midnight Press Conference, and it was completely DPD affair. If there were any FBI agents there, they were in the audience. They were not up there on display. That was all DPD. 





    I can't make any sense of this at all. Was it two different times? It has to be the same night and the same situation, but did Oswald address the reporters from two different spots because there is no reconciling these two images. We can see the KRLD camera in both pictures, but were there two separate takes from two different arrangements? But, in any case, we don't see that tall guy at all in the bottom picture.